R S JAGTAP Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was given charge-sheet on 10-2-1986 in connection with some alleged misconduct of June 1984 The Inquiry Officer submitted report on 31-7-1987 and thereafter on 9-11-1987 the respondent No. 2 Director General of Police Gujarat State issued notice to the petitioner to show-cause may be should not be dismissed from service and at the same time passed the order placing the petitioner under suspension. Being aggrieved with the order of suspension the petitioner has filed this petition. The petition has been admitted by this Court and at that time the ad-interim relief was granted in terms of para 18(B) & 18(C). The petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid interim order has been reinstated in the service and he is now in active service.

(2.) The petitioner was not placed under suspension at the time of giving charge-sheet to him in the month of Feb. 1986. Even after the receipt of the report of the Inquiry Officer in the month of July 1987 the Director General of Police Competent Authority did not think it fit to place the petitioner under suspension. But after receiving the report of the Inquiry Officer in the month of July 1987 at the time of issuing show-cause notice in the month of November 1987 he thought it proper to place the petitioner under suspension because he had reached tentative decision to dismiss the petitioner from service and issued a notice to the petitioner to show-cause why that penalty should not be imposed upon him.

(3.) The Concerned Authority did not think it proper to place the petitioner under suspension for the period of 1 year and 5 months i.e. the period during which the inquiry proceeded. It was only 4 months after the receipt of the report of Inquiry Officer that the petitioner had been issued show-cause notice and was placed under suspension. It is difficult to contemplate how the petitioner could have been placed under suspension pending inquiry when inquiry was almost over and the report of the Inquiry Officer was received. The learned Addl. G.P. submits that because notice was issued to the petitioner to show-cause against the proposed order of dismissal the petitioner might adopt dishonest means and therefore it was thought it proper to suspend the petitioner from service. If the charges were so grave then the petitioner should have been suspended in the month of February 1986 without waiting till the result of the inquiry on the contrary the fact that the petitioner has been placed under suspension while issuing notice would show that the concerned authority had already made up its mind to dismiss the petitioner and that show-cause notice was given only to make it appear that an opportunity was given to the petitioner to had his say. I do not think that a person can be placed under suspension pending inquiry in the circumstances stated above. It may be that at the time of giving chargesheet the concerned authority may not think it proper to suspend the petitioner immediately and may wait till some evidence is recorded or may suspend the delinquent if he is tampering with the witnesses but it is difficult to contemplate how the petitioner could he suspended after the inquiry is almost over.